Case Summary
The petitioner/1st defendant Brijitte Joseph seeks to restrain the respondents/plaintiffs Antony and others from obstructing her and her family from entering the property and carrying out construction. The plaintiffs had previously obtained an interim injunction to prevent this.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
The respondents/plaintiffs were restrained from making any obstructions to the 1st defendant and her family members in entering the property and carrying out construction.
Case Type
Injunction
Final Judgment
No
The court allowed the IA filed by the petitioner/1st defendant, allowing her to proceed with the construction of a house on the property.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioner/1st defendant demonstrated a prima facie case for the necessity of construction and the balance of convenience was found to be in her favor.
The petitioner/1st defendant demonstrated a prima facie case for the necessity of construction and the balance of convenience was found to be in her favor.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The petitioner/1st defendant demonstrated a prima facie case for the necessity of construction and the balance of convenience was found to be in her favor.
The petitioner/1st defendant demonstrated a prima facie case for the necessity of construction and the balance of convenience was found to be in her favor.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner/1st defendant has made out a prima facie case, and the balance of convenience is in her favour.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, IA is allowed. No cost.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Antony
- Party Age
- 76
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Margret
- Party Age
- 72
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Nepolean
- Party Age
- 68
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Roselette Mary
- Party Age
- 57
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Varghese
- Party Age
- 55
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Brijitte Joseph
- Party Age
- 70
- Relation
- D/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Settlement deed in 2009 granting 0.90 Ares including the house.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. P. Sankara Pillai
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Adv.Dileep.S.
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The petitioner/1st defendant sought to restrain the respondents/plaintiffs from obstructing her from entering the plaint schedule property and carrying out construction.
Evidence:
The respondents/plaintiffs restrained from making any obstructions to the 1st defendant and her family members in entering the plaint schedule property, residing therein and carrying out the construction of a house on the said property.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
The court referenced the settlement deed as evidence of the 1st defendant's claim to possess 0.90 Ares of land.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The commission report indicated the living conditions of the 1st defendant and her disabled daughter.
Reference:
Document Type:
Oral Evidence
Submitted By:
Unknown
Relevance:
The court considered oral statements made by the 1st defendant during the hearing.
Reference:
Case Classification
Case Type
Injunction
Category
Injunction and Access Rights
District
Kollam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kollam
Common Reasons
Obstruction to property access
Case Code
OS.
Case Code Year
2024